Ex-Rolling Stone Editor Tears Apart Jack Smith’s Jan 6 Indictment Against Trump Matt Vespa

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/08/07/authoritarian-lunacy-ex-rolling-stone-reporter-rips-into-jack-smiths-jan-6-indictment-against-trump-n2626742

Matt Taibbi has been a thorn in the side of the Left for his incisive commentary that’s shredded most of liberal America’s anti-Trump narratives. He’s a Russian collusion skeptic who regularly observed how his side has gone off the rails. He and other reporters have categorized the systemic censorship and political influence peddling at Twitter before Elon Musk’s takeover. These reports earned him the ire of congressional Democrats, but Taibbi is a classical liberal. And the former contributing editor for Rolling Stone probably offered the most even-keeled take on the January 6 indictment against Donald Trump. 

He noted it’s a layer cake: “a surreal mix of conventional law and authoritarian lunacy.” 

Taibbi points to where Special Counsel Jack Smith should have ventured if he wanted to slap Trump with a genuinely damning indictment. At least one that he feels would be more palatable to the public, who are beginning to see that most of the legal actions against the former president are driven by political bias and animus rather than facts. The January 6 indictment embodies everything we’ve come to expect from a corrupt Department of Justice. 

The ex-Rolling Stone reporter highlighted Trump’s calls to state officials regarding results, which are damning but irrelevant because that’s not where Smith went on this indictment. Mr. Smith’s way does seem to hinder legal free speech, overstepping as he’s done in the past with interpreting criminal statutes. Since the anti-Trump lawyers at DOJ went down this predictable path, Taibbi takes a blowtorch to the three big areas he feels rewrites law based on supposed evidence that he finds “bananas” (via Substack): 

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s indictment is a case within a case, a prosecutorial enchilada filled with things for people of all political persuasions to hate. The outside is a shell of a conventional conspiracy prosecution, and these parts are genuinely damaging for Donald Trump. Inside, it’s a deranged authoritarian fantasy, at times reading more like a 45-page Louise Mensch tweet than an indictment. 

The Miraculously Changing Narrative around Biden’s Involvement in Hunter Inc.By Becket Adams

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/08/the-miraculously-changing-narrative-around-bidens-involvement-in-hunter-inc/

The media are committed to defending the first family, no matter what facts emerge.

Rarely have newsrooms committed so much effort to protecting men of such little character.

As recently as just four years ago, the New York Times and other news outlets would have jumped at the chance to investigate allegations that the president and his son operated an influence-peddling operation involving foreign nationals. Every editor at every major newsroom would be barking at his staff right now, demanding that they look into whether the president’s son had, in fact, leveraged the family name in return for huge sums of cash, whether the president got a cut of the action, and whether the president himself coordinated quid pro quos with well-heeled foreign interests.

But that was then. Now, there’s a Democrat in the Oval Office. For major media, most especially the New York Times, there’s not much value to the Biden family corruption story, which alleges President Joe Biden conspired with his son, Hunter, to rake in mountains of cash from foreign entities in return for certain preferred policies toward their countries. After all, according to the Times, the story is old news. It’s also none of your damn business.

Last week, after yet another fact emerged suggesting that Joe Biden had indeed been involved to some degree with his son’s overseas business dealings, contrary to what he himself stated unequivocally during the 2020 presidential election, the New York Times ran to the president’s aid with the classic “old news!” defense.

“It has long been known that the elder Mr. Biden at times interacted with his son’s business partners,” the paper of record declared on Monday.

Is that so? This thing Joe Biden vigorously denied in the 2020 election has “long been known”?

Recall that Biden declared in the 2020 election, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period.”

“And what I will do is the same thing we did in our administration,” he added. “There will be an absolute wall between personal and private [business interests] and the government. There wasn’t any hint of scandal at all when we were there. And I’m going to propose the same kind of strict, strict rules. That’s why I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.”

That same year, during a campaign event in Iowa, Biden insisted again that he had never, ever spoken to his son about his business interests.

“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said. “I know Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic norm of a president. You should be looking at Trump. . . . Everybody looked at [allegations that I spoke with Hunter about his overseas business activities] and everybody looked at it and said there is nothing there. Ask the right questions.”

Later, after it became increasingly likely that Joe Biden had, in fact, interacted with his son’s business partners, the White House amended, ever so slightly, the president’s earlier assurances.

“The answer remains the same,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in July. “The president was never in business with his son. I just don’t have anything else to add.”

Are Greens Overplaying Their Hand? Craig Rucker

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/08/are-greens-overplaying-their-hand/

The Green movement has a long history of rubbing people the wrong way.  In some cases, it was perhaps for the public good, like starting campaigns to stop littering and save whales.  In other cases, it was just plain patronizing, like telling parents to ditch disposable diapers and keep their thermostats set to 65 degrees in winter.

These days, however, the eco-crowd has taken everything to a whole new level of busybody.

The “climate crisis” is the purported justification cited as to why we all need to change our behaviors – and there can be no deviation. Citizens are expected to acquiesce to their whims simply because they shout “the world will end in five years”, as Greta Thunberg did in 2018. In many respects, Green extremists feel the public should submit to the same way they bowed to two-year COVID masking and lockdown diktats.

But their list of demands has gotten overbearing.  So much so, in fact, that one must believe they will soon overplay their hand and face considerable public backlash. Indeed, they already have in many instances, but it’s worth taking a look at just a few of their recent irksome moves that have made news. 

Ditch gas stoves, water heaters and furnaces – In some cases, like gas stoves, Greens want them banned outright. In other cases, like water heaters and furnaces, they want the appliances regulated under new federal rules for nearly impossible 95% efficiency. Many electric replacements will require expensive rewiring of homes and neighborhoods, and heat pumps that don’t work well in frigid weather.

Ban wood-burning pizza ovens – Politicians in the Big Apple want to force popular restaurants and pizzerias to install outrageously expensive “pollution” controls systems to reduce their “excessive carbon footprint” and reduce air pollution. Environmentalists don’t seem to care this is enormously unpopular with average New Yorkers. They seem intent to push their agenda or the common Joe, even if data suggests each oven would have to bake pizzas 24/7 for nearly 850 years to equal the annual carbon dioxide emissions from the private jets that Biden Climate Emissary John Kerry uses to avoid commercial airlines.

EV Owners Suddenly Realize They’re Being Conned

https://issuesinsights.com/2023/08/08/why-is-tesla-the-only-ev-maker-getting-sued-for-false-advertising/

Three California residents last week filed a lawsuit against Tesla for what they claim is false advertising over the car’s range. But why stop at Tesla? And why just sue over false claims about range when every other claim about EVs is also a lie?

The lawsuit comes in the wake of a Reuters report contending that Tesla had been goosing the range displayed on its dashboard and created a “diversion team” to deal with all the customer complaints about faulty batteries.

The filing claims that “Had Tesla honestly advertised its electric vehicle ranges, consumers either would not have purchased Tesla model vehicles, or else would have paid substantially less for them.”

But this isn’t new news. There have been several reports over the years about the wildly inflated EV range claims.

A little over a year ago, Forbes published an article detailing how the advertised range of EVs was often way off.

“I’ve been road testing electric cars regularly for more than two years now, and not once has a battery-only vehicle met the claimed capacity for its battery,” wrote senior contributor Neil Winton. “The average shortfall is close to 20%.”

Tesla actually did better in his tests than some of the other EVs.

A report from Car & Driver last August found that only three cars it tested did better than the official EPA range estimate. Tesla’s Model S is supposed to go 348 miles on a charge but only made it 280 miles. Ford’s electric F-150 came up 70 miles short of its reported 300-mile range.

Anthony Fauci’s Deceptions A trove of emails, Slack messages, and other documents reveal Fauci’s behind-the-scenes involvement. ‘Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories.’ By David Zweig

https://www.thefp.com/p/anthony-faucis-deceptions?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

On April 17, 2020, with much of the country still in some form of lockdown and news of overwhelmed hospitals dominating the headlines, Dr. Anthony Fauci, then a member of the President’s Coronavirus Task Force, was asked a question toward the end of a White House press briefing: Was there a possibility that this novel virus came from a lab in Wuhan, China?

“There was a study recently,” Fauci said confidently, “where a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists looked at the sequences there and the sequences in bats as they evolve, and the mutations that it took to get to where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human.” In other words, it wasn’t from the lab.

This moment set the template for much that would follow from Fauci over the next three years. That is, evasion, deception, and misdirection about his support of high-risk virology research and its connection to the possibility that a lab leak in Wuhan caused a worldwide catastrophe.

Fauci, who was the face of the public health community during the crisis, pushed the idea that the evidence strongly indicated that the virus was just a tragic, natural occurrence. He insisted, repeatedly, that an epidemic that started in Wuhan was unlikely to have been the result of an escape from the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). 

But Fauci had an incentive to arrive at his conclusion about the deadly pandemic that started in Wuhan. The WIV was known for doing high-risk virology research studying and manipulating coronaviruses. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for almost 40 years, had funded such research at the WIV.

Fauci’s posture—dismissive toward the theory of the lab leak, and later, condescending toward those who entertained it—set what became the accepted narrative about the origins of the pandemic. It was a narrative that was parroted by the government, public health officials, and the media, and even enforced by social media platforms at the request of the Biden White House.

But last month, a trove of explosive emails and other documents were released by the U.S. House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. These revealed evidence of Fauci’s and other officials’ behind-the-scenes involvement with scientists and journalists, demonstrating their efforts to quash the lab leak theory.

The recently disclosed private communications, first reported by Public and Racket, lay bare that the “highly qualified” authors of the paper that Fauci had asserted in April 2020 likely disproved a lab leak—what became known informally as the “Proximal Origin” paper—actually had extensive uncertainty about the virus being the result of a natural event. This was grossly at odds with what became their published position.

The paper that Fauci recommended was published on March 17, 2020. But in February, just the month before, Kristian Andersen, one of the paper’s authors, wrote a Slack message to his colleagues saying: “[T]he lab escape version of this is so friggin’ likely to have happened because they were already doing this type of work and the molecular data is fully consistent with that scenario.” 

Alexei Navalny Gets Another 19 Years The Russian opposition figure is a reminder of the price of freedom.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/alexei-navalny-gets-another-19-years-dfc7e4db?mod=opinion_lead_pos2

The world hardly needs another reminder of the true nature of Vladimir Putin’s Russian state, but last week brought one anyway: On Friday the opposition figure Alexei Navalny was sentenced to 19 years in prison on charges of extremism, after a trial that took place in the penal colony where he is already imprisoned.

Mr. Navalny, age 47, has galvanized protests and publicized criticisms of Mr. Putin’s personal wealth. In 2020 he survived a poisoning by what investigators later said was the Russian nerve agent Novichok. He was arrested in 2021, and his anti-corruption foundation was shut down as a purported “extremist” organization.

In comments posted to social media after the 19-year sentence came down, Mr. Navalny made clear that he has no illusions about what he’s up against. “The number doesn’t matter,” he said. “I understand very well that, like many political prisoners, I am serving a life sentence—where life is measured by the duration of my life or the life of this regime.” He added that Mr. Putin’s goal in persecuting him is to frighten and intimidate everyone else who might be tempted to resist: “You are being forced to surrender your Russia without a fight to a gang of traitors, thieves and scoundrels who have seized power.”

What a thing to say from the confines of a Russian prison. Bravery, Mr. Navalny has it. So does Jimmy Lai in Hong Kong, who could easily be living a billionaire’s life in exile instead of sitting in a prison cell, and so do countless others who defy autocratic regimes, as far away as Iran and Afghanistan, and as close to home as Cuba, only 90 miles off Florida.

The U.S. has its share of problems, but it remains, as much as ever, a beacon of freedom and democracy, and if Americans ever take that for granted, they should take a look around.

Can Trump Get an “Impartial Jury” in DC? What the Law Requires by Alan M. Dershowitz

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19871/trump-impartial-jury

What should happen… when it is virtually impossible for the defendant to get an impartial jury in that state or district?

The prosecution of Donald Trump for the events around January 6, 2021 would seem to call for a change of venue. The District of Columbia is the most extreme Democratic district in the country. Approximately 95% of the potential jurors register and vote Democrat. Whereas approximately 5% voted for Trump. Furthermore, the anger against Trump is understandable in light of the fact that the events of January 6th directly involved many citizens of the district. Moreover, the judge randomly selected to preside over this case has a long history of bias against Trump and his supporters, and her law firm has a long history of conflicts and corruption.

It is imperative, therefore, that in a case where the incumbent president has urged his Attorney General to pursue his political opponent aggressively, that all efforts must be made to ensure fairness. Prosecutors must lean over backwards to persuade the public that partisan considerations played absolutely no role in the decision to indict. Agreeing to a change of venue and judge would go a long way toward seeing that justice is done.

Change of venue motions are only rarely granted, as are motions to recuse a selected judge. But this is a case where justice demands that these motions be granted, both in the interests of the defendants and in the interests of justice. The government should not oppose such motions, though they generally do if it gives them a tactical advantage.

It is likely therefore that these defense requests will be denied by the trial judge.

If an unfair trial results in a conviction, the impact will already be felt, even if it is reversed on appeal after the election, as the prosecution likely anticipates.

If the prosecution case is strong, it should have no fear of a jury and judge outside of DC. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said: the job of a prosecutor is not merely to maximize the chances of winning, but to assure that he wins fairly and justly. In order to achieve that goal, the prosecutors in this case should not oppose defense motions for a change of venue and judge. Nor should it oppose an appeal if the trial judge denies these well-founded defense motions.

In all likelihood, prosecutors will vigorously fight all efforts by the defense to assure an impartial jury and judge, because they want every advantage that will help them secure a victory. They will point to defense efforts to secure advantages for their client and argue that the adversary system of justice requires them to do the same. But that is not the law. The Supreme Court clearly delineated a different role for persecutors who represent the government: “The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done.” The prosecutors in the January 6th case should study this opinion before they deny Trump an impartial jury.

Joe Biden’s Weather Report Unfortunately for The Narrative, folks aren’t buying what they’re selling By Roger Kimball

https://amgreatness.com/2023/08/06/joe-bidens-weather-report/

It was only recently that I have come to understand what a deep bench of comic talent the Democrats command.

Consider Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY).

Is there a more accomplished straight man in the business?

A week ago, Devon Archer, bosom buddy and former biz partner of First Son Hunter Biden, testified in a closed-door session before the House Oversight Committee. The subject? Allegations of wholesale bribery, corruption, and influence peddling on the part of the Bidens.

Hunter is said to be the peddler (with Archer in the role of Tonto), dear old dad the product peddled. The details, now available in the transcript that Rep. James Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, released last week are eyeopening to say the least.

We now know, for example, that Joe Biden was summoned to the telephone at least 20 times to chat with Hunter’s business partners in Ukraine, China, Romania, and elsewhere. What were they talking about?

According to Rep. Goldman, it was just chit chat.

“How’s it going, Dad?”

“Pretty well, son? How’s the weather there?”

You could almost see Goldman holding his breath as he said that. Would the rubes buy it?

Yes, it was the party line. CNN established that by reporting that what Hunter was selling was only the “illusion” of influence. Unfortunately for The Narrative, folks aren’t buying what they’re selling. The normally understated Jonathan Turley, an independent-minded Democratic commentator, said that Archer’s testimony revealed “the apex of corruption.”

“What we now know,” he said, “is that the President has been lying.”

Jonathan Turley spells out how foul the Trump indictment really is By Andrea Widburg

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/08/jonathan_turley_spells_out_how_foul_the_trump_indictment_really_is.html

Every American’s speech is entitled to First Amendment protection. However, if the Biden administration has its way, that protection does not extend to Donald Trump. With his usual clarity and insight, law professor Jonathan Turley spells out just how foul the Trump indictment really is.

As always, when it comes to the latest Democrat “gotcha” against Trump, this one is stink and dangerous, explains Turley. Hidden behind the legal language and statutory citations is a straightforward effort to punish Trump for daring to speak his mind about the chicanery he (and half of the American voters) perceived in the 2020 election:

Trump was not charged with conspiracy to incite violence or insurrection. Rather, he was charged because he “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won.”

In other words, Trump is being accused of challenging the Democrat establishment’s insistence that it won the election fair and square. Any dissenting views must not only be silenced but must be punished, both to keep Trump off the ballot and as a warning to others.

Throw All the Bums Out By J.B. Shurk

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/08/throw_all_the_bums_out.html

I don’t think the federal government will exist in its current form much longer.  The reason is simple: if Marxist globalists get their way, then sovereign U.S. powers will continue to be unlawfully delegated to the U.N., the WHO, and other international monstrosities until some Obama-type tyrant is ruling over us all from Turtle Bay or a stately castle outside Brussels.  If freedom-minded people succeed in reining in the federal government and reimposing the Constitution’s limited delegation of powers, then the monstrosity that is already with us will radically diminish or disappear.  Either the current beast lording it over us will transform into something even more menacing, or it will be sapped of its blood-thirst for unconstitutional overreach and brought to heel.  For what it’s worth, my vote is for the Price Is Right option: the whole D.C. menagerie should just be spayed or neutered.

As we stand right now, the federal government functions as an extra-constitutional and largely illegitimate system that usurps the individual states’ respective sovereignties, infringes the American people’s personal rights, and betrays the spirit of our country’s foundations in liberty.

Our Union came into existence only because the former colonies were assured that they would maintain their freedom and independence.  Had the Articles of Confederation or their successor, the U.S. Constitution, sought to extinguish the individual states’ inherent sovereignties by replacing their discrete political powers with those of a single new nation, then no agreement to form a Union would have ever been reached.  The colonies did not fight a war for their independence from an empire only to squander their victory and become part of another empire.

Quite the contrary, the individual states maintain a political stature on par with foreign nations such as France and Spain; it is only in the specifically enumerated powers delegated to the federal government that federal authority supersedes the states’ own.  That word “delegated” is important.  The federal government’s power does not spring from thin air, but rather is derived from specifically listed authorities delegated to it from the states and the people.  The American people and the individual states are the origin of all legitimate power, and the federal government exists only so long as the people and the states continue to lend their own innate powers to breathe life into an otherwise powerless system.  Before the Civil War, the idea that an American was a citizen of the United States would have been as absurd as an American today being a citizen of the United Nations.  Americans are citizens of their respective states, and the states belong to the Union.